The "Longer Ending" of Mark: Handling This and Other Differences in Manuscripts

Almost every Bible translation I have ever read will add a disclaimer to Mark 16:9-20 saying that the earliest manuscripts do not have this section, and instead Mark's account ends with verse 8. Why is this disclaimer there? What does it mean? 

A biblical manuscript is any handwritten copy of a portion of the text of the Bible. When we talk about New Testament Manuscripts, we refer to carefully copied early handwritten copies of the gospel accounts and the letters of the early church included in our New Testament. For an explanation of what makes the New Testament reliable, read 12 Reasons to Trust the New Testament by Cross Examined.

Why I am grateful for this disclaimer about Mark 16:9-20 and the others like it:

First, it allows me to read with the facts so that I can better discern the truth. If I wanted to think critically about the message of the Bible, I can read the text with and without this section to see if the message changes between the two readings.

Second, it shows that most Bible translators are extremely cautious, trying to translate the Bible as accurately as possible. I've heard some people say there is no way to know how much the Bible has been changed and this is ONE of the many arguments against that line of thinking. Due to the extraordinary great number of New Testament manuscripts and the early dating of the copies of these manuscripts, the textual criticism of the New Testament has shown the gospels and letters we have today to be exceedingly reliable, down to a few small portions of scripture that have this disclaimer. How incredible that Bible translators include the text and include the disclaimer and allow us to have all the information to come to an informed conclusion! 

Other scripture with this footnote / disclaimer include: 

• John 7:53-8:11 was not in the earliest manuscripts of John.
• Other verses such as Mark 9:29 which can either be "prayer" or "prayer and fasting." 
• 1 John 5:7-8 was different in the late manuscripts of the Vulgate (around 16th century), but our current translations aside from the King James Version come directly from the oldest Greek manuscripts. The wording in the KJV is different here, and in several other places in the Bible. (See How We Got our Bible by CrossExamined for more about the KJV translation.)
• Some claim John Chapter 21 was added, but that claim is recent and those scholars are a smaller minority.
• Other smaller portions of verses. I am not listing all of them, but those are the more major ones I know of.

This isn't the impressive mic-drop claim some believe it to be, as if "people have added to the New Testament over the years." Even if I took out all of these verses, my theology would remain unchanged. (In fact, even many people who don't believe in the Bible actually like John 7:53-8:11 since it's the story of the woman caught in adultery, showing that Jesus did not condemn her.) Either way, the miracles, the prophecies, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus are not among the passages that may have been added in - we have multiple accounts with all of those details, including the gospel of Mark without the longer ending.

Third, it shows which portions of scripture have textual variations. When someone makes a vague claim that "the bible has been changed," I would ask that they make more of a specific claim. What portions may have been changed? When were they changed? I don't ask you to take my word for it - but you must look at the evidence before making vague general claims. Please make some case for it.

For example, anyone claiming today that Jesus never lived must ignore not only these ancient documents we have that are in the Bible, but also multiple ancient sources from the time surrounding and directly following the life of Jesus that are from non-biblical sources, and even non-Christians. These sources confirm that he lived, some say that he "performed many signs," some confirm that he died by crucifixion, and others allude to the empty tomb. This is why even Atheist / Agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman repeatedly states that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.

Mark's Longer Ending

So what about Mark's longer ending? Personally, I think there is good evidence to suggest that Mark originally ended with verse 8. That said, the longer ending, if not original, was still a part of some early manuscripts and are consistent with the rest of the New Testament. There is no new core teaching, and without it, Mark's gospel still includes the resurrection and deity of Jesus. Whether you consider it part of the original book or not should not really affect the message of the gospel. If added, they were likely added by Christians shortly after 100 AD with no ill will or hidden motives. "The Bible Knowledge Commentary" states, 

"A final conclusion to the problem probably cannot be reached on the basis of presently known data. A view which seems to account for the relevant evidence and to raise the least number of objections is that (a) Mark purposely ended his Gospel with verse 8 and (b) verses 9–20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon (cf. similarly the last chapter of Deut.). In this view, very early in the transmission of Mark’s Gospel (perhaps shortly after A.D. 100) verses 9–20 were added to verse 8 without any attempt to match Mark’s vocabulary and style. Possibly these verses were brief extracts from the post-Resurrection accounts found in the other three Gospels and were known through oral tradition to have the approval of the Apostle John who lived till near the end of the first century. Thus the material was included early enough in the transmission process to gain recognition and acceptance by the church as part of canonical Scripture. These verses are consistent with the rest of Scripture. The development of the theme of belief and unbelief unifies the passage." - J. D. Grassmick, "The Bible Knowledge Commentary"* (See their full commentary about this ending at the bottom of the page.)

It seems to end on a cliffhanger, but not really. The BibleProject's book overview of Mark's gospel suggests that Mark may have been emphasizing his invitation to the reader to respond. You have heard the account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, you have seen the response of those around him - from the disciples who followed him, to Mary who anoints him, to the Jewish teachers of the law who plotted to kill him, to the Roman centurion who proclaimed after watching him die that Jesus was "the Son of God," to the women who ran from the empty tomb trembling and astonished. What is your response?

The BibleProject makes this conclusion: 

"Like a snoozing passenger in a vehicle that comes to an abrupt stop, Mark’s readers—including us—should spring up from our seats and ask, 'What’s going on?' We are startled into engaging with the gospel message and responding appropriately. Mark leaves us to wrestle with all the questions and implications surrounding the good news. It would seem no one else can do that work for us. If we experience fear or disbelief like the women at the end of Mark’s Gospel, he assures us that we are in good company. (And remember that these women went on to become the first proclaimers of the resurrection to their community!) However, we are left with a challenge to continue where the story leaves off.

"Maybe we should have expected this ending all along. Mark opens his gospel saying, 'this is the beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ' (Mark 1:1). To Mark, his gospel story was not the end, but the beginning. The risen Jesus continues to reign as the King of the world, and the Gospel of Mark invites us into experiencing this and participating in spreading that good news. The invitation to set off on this journey to meet the risen King for yourself still stands."

- Erin Vroom, BibleProject article "The 'Missing' End of Mark's Gospel"**

*Grassmick, J. D. (1985). Mark. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 194). Victor Books.

**Vroom, Erin. BibleProject "The 'Missing' End of Mark's Gospel". https://bibleproject.com/articles/missing-end-mark-gospel/

______________________________________________________

The following is the full explanation from The Bible Knowledge Commentary on the evidence for and against this ending:

Several interpreters believe that Mark concluded his Gospel at this point. The abrupt ending is consistent with Mark’s style and punctuates his development of the themes of fear and astonishment throughout his Gospel. The reader is left to ponder with awe the meaning of the empty tomb as interpreted by the angel’s revelatory message (cf. the following comments on 16:9–20).

  X.      Disputed Epilogue (16:9–20)

The last 12 verses of Mark (16:9–20) known as “the longer ending of Mark” constitute one of the most difficult and most disputed textual problems in the New Testament. Were these verses included or omitted in Mark’s original text? Most modern English translations call attention to the problem in some way such as adding an explanatory footnote at verse 9 (NASB), setting this section apart from verse 8 with an explanatory note (NIV), or printing the whole section in the margin (RSV).

The external evidence includes the following: (1) The two earliest (fourth century) uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit the verses though their respective scribes left some blank space after verse 8, suggesting that they knew of a longer ending but did not have it in the manuscript they were copying. (2) Most all other manuscripts (fifth century on) as well as early versions support the inclusion of verses 9–20. (3) Several later manuscripts (seventh century on) and versions supply a “shorter ending” after verse 8 which is clearly not genuine but all these manuscripts (except one) continue on with verses 9–20. (4) Early patristic writers—such as Justin Martyr (Apology 1. 45, ca. A.D. 148), Tatian (Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170), and Irenaeus who quoted verse 19 (Against Heresies 3. 10. 5)—support the inclusion of these verses. However, Eusebius (Questions to Marinus 1, ca. A.D. 325) and Jerome (Epistle 120. 3; ad Hedibiam, ca. A.D. 407) said verses 9–20 were missing from Greek manuscripts known to them. (5) An Armenian manuscript of the 10th century attributed verses 9–20 to “the presbyter Ariston,” probably Aristion, a contemporary of Papias (A.D. 60–130) who was purportedly a disciple of the Apostle John. (6) If Mark ended abruptly at verse 8, then it is easy to see why some early copyist(s) wanted to provide a “suitable” ending for the Gospel from other authoritative sources. However, if verses 9–20 were part of the original, it is difficult to see why the early copyists would have omitted it.

Internal evidence includes this data: (1) The transition from verse 8 to verse 9 involves an abrupt change of subject from “women” to the presumed subject “Jesus” since His name is not stated in verse 9 of the Greek text. (2) Mary Magdalene is introduced with a descriptive clause in verse 9 as though she had not been mentioned already in 15:40, 47 and 16:1. (3) About 1/3 of the significant Greek words in verses 9–20 are “non-Marcan,” that is, they do not appear elsewhere in Mark or they are used differently from Mark’s usage prior to verse 9. (4) The Greek literary style lacks the vivid, lifelike detail so characteristic of Mark’s historical narrative. (5) Mark would have been expected to include a Resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee (14:28; 16:7), but the appearances in verses 9–20 are in or near Jerusalem. (6) Matthew and Luke parallel Mark until verse 8 and then diverge noticeably, suggesting that Mark began its literary existence without verses 9–20.

Equally astute and conscientious interpreters differ widely in their evaluations of this data and reach opposing conclusions. Those who include these verses in light of the preponderance of early and widespread external support must still account satisfactorily for the internal evidence which appears to distinguish these verses from the rest of the Gospel. And those who omit these verses must still account for their early and widespread attestation externally and give a suitable reason for Mark’s seemingly abrupt conclusion at verse 8. Four possible solutions for this have been suggested: (1) Mark finished his Gospel but the original ending was lost or destroyed in some way now unknown before it was copied. (2) Mark finished his Gospel but the original ending was deliberately suppressed or removed for some reason now unknown. (3) Mark was unable to finish his Gospel for some reason now unknown—possibly sudden death. (4) Mark purposely intended to end his Gospel at verse 8.

Of these options, numbers 1 and 2 are unlikely even though the view that the original ending was accidentally lost is widely accepted. If Mark’s Gospel was a scroll manuscript rather than a codex (leaf form of book) the ending would normally be on the inside of the scroll and less likely to be damaged or lost than the beginning of the scroll. If the incompleteness of Mark is assumed, number 3 is the most probable option but due to its very nature it cannot be confirmed. In light of Mark’s use of the theme “fear” in relation to Jesus’ followers (cf. v. 8), many modern interpreters incline toward option 4.

A final conclusion to the problem probably cannot be reached on the basis of presently known data. A view which seems to account for the relevant evidence and to raise the least number of objections is that (a) Mark purposely ended his Gospel with verse 8 and (b) verses 9–20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon (cf. similarly the last chapter of Deut.). In this view, very early in the transmission of Mark’s Gospel (perhaps shortly after A.D. 100) verses 9–20 were added to verse 8 without any attempt to match Mark’s vocabulary and style. Possibly these verses were brief extracts from the post-Resurrection accounts found in the other three Gospels and were known through oral tradition to have the approval of the Apostle John who lived till near the end of the first century. Thus the material was included early enough in the transmission process to gain recognition and acceptance by the church as part of canonical Scripture. These verses are consistent with the rest of Scripture. The development of the theme of belief and unbelief unifies the passage.

Grassmick, J. D. (1985). Mark. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, pp. 193–194). Victor Books.